Yvain comments on Open Thread, June 16-30, 2013 - Less Wrong

3 Post author: Dorikka 16 June 2013 04:45AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (313)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: coffeespoons 17 June 2013 02:49:03PM *  17 points [-]

Genes take charge and diets fall by the wayside.

You need a New York Times account to read it, but setting one up only takes a couple of minutes. Here are some exerpts in any case.

Obese people almost always regain weight after weight loss:

So Dr. Hirsch and his colleagues, including Dr. Rudolph L. Leibel, who is now at Columbia University, repeated the experiment and repeated it again. Every time the result was the same. The weight, so painstakingly lost, came right back. But since this was a research study, the investigators were also measuring metabolic changes, psychiatric conditions, body temperature and pulse. And that led them to a surprising conclusion: fat people who lost large amounts of weight might look like someone who was never fat, but they were very different. In fact, by every metabolic measurement, they seemed like people who were starving.

Before the diet began, the fat subjects’ metabolism was normal — the number of calories burned per square meter of body surface was no different from that of people who had never been fat. But when they lost weight, they were burning as much as 24 percent fewer calories per square meter of their surface area than the calories consumed by those who were naturally thin.

Thin people who are forced to gain weight find it easy to lose it again:

...His subjects were prisoners at a nearby state prison who volunteered to gain weight. With great difficulty, they succeeded, increasing their weight by 20 percent to 25 percent. But it took them four to six months, eating as much as they could every day. Some consumed 10,000 calories a day, an amount so incredible that it would be hard to believe, were it not for the fact that there were attendants present at each meal who dutifully recorded everything the men ate.

Once the men were fat, their metabolisms increased by 50 percent. They needed more than 2,700 calories per square meter of their body surface to stay fat but needed just 1,800 calories per square meter to maintain their normal weight.

When the study ended, the prisoners had no trouble losing weight. Within months, they were back to normal and effortlessly stayed there.

The body's metabolism changes with weight loss and weight gain:

The implications were clear. There is a reason that fat people cannot stay thin after they diet and that thin people cannot stay fat when they force themselves to gain weight. The body’s metabolism speeds up or slows down to keep weight within a narrow range. Gain weight and the metabolism can as much as double; lose weight and it can slow to half its original speed.

Genes and weight:

.A few years later, in 1990, Dr. Stunkard published another study in The New England Journal of Medicine, using another classic method of geneticists: investigating twins. This time, he used the Swedish Twin Registry, studying its 93 pairs of identical twins who were reared apart, 154 pairs of identical twins who were reared together, 218 pairs of fraternal twins who were reared apart, and 208 pairs of fraternal twins who were reared together.

The identical twins had nearly identical body mass indexes, whether they had been reared apart or together. There was more variation in the body mass indexes of the fraternal twins, who, like any siblings, share some, but not all, genes.

The researchers concluded that 70 percent of the variation in peoples’ weights may be accounted for by inheritance, a figure that means that weight is more strongly inherited than nearly any other condition, including mental illness, breast cancer or heart disease.

Comment author: Yvain 18 June 2013 07:10:26AM *  6 points [-]

On the other hand, here's a study that shows a very strong link between impulse control and weight. I'm not really sure what to believe anymore.

Comment author: gwern 18 June 2013 08:39:21PM 6 points [-]

The impulse control they use is a facet of Conscientiousness; and we already know Conscientiousness is highly heritable...

Comment author: AspiringRationalist 19 June 2013 04:24:49AM 5 points [-]

Yes, but it is still potentially useful to know how much of the heritability is metabolically vs. behaviorally manifested.

Also more generally, we should be careful about mixing different levels of causation.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 18 June 2013 12:02:06PM 2 points [-]

Unless I'm missing something, they don't describe the size of the effects of personality that they found, just the strength of the correlations.

Comment author: gwern 18 June 2013 08:42:42PM 1 point [-]

I'm not too clear on how to interpret hierarchical model coefficients, but they do give at least one description of effect size, on pg6:

These associations revealed clinically meaningful differences in weight. For example, participants who scored in the top 10% of Neuroticism's Impulsiveness weighed, on average, over 11 Kg more than those who scored in the lowest 10% of this trait. Likewise, participants who scored high on Conscientiousness's Order weighed about 4.5 Kg less than those who scored low on Order.

and pg8:

In addition, the emotional aspects of impulsivity (N5: Impulsiveness and E5: Excitement-Seeking) were also associated with greater increases in adiposity. For example, on average, at age 30, those who scored one standard deviation above the mean on impulsivity had a BMI that was approximately 2.30 points higher than those who scored one standard deviation below the mean on this trait. By age 90, this gap increased to a 5.22 BMI point difference (see Figure 3).

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 19 June 2013 12:10:01AM 0 points [-]

Thanks. Those differences are small compared to common differences of BMI, though.

Comment author: gwern 19 June 2013 01:17:05AM 0 points [-]

Well, yeah, you should've expected that from the small correlations.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 19 June 2013 02:30:31AM 1 point [-]

I don't have much knowledge of statistics. You may have forgotten what that's like.

Comment author: [deleted] 18 June 2013 03:18:37PM 0 points [-]

In principle, something (e.g. how much the mother eats during the pregnancy) might affect both those things, with no causal pathway from one down to the other.